logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.06 2015가단6913
공사대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around the end of March 2003, have developed into a multi-party relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and around March 14, 2005, they continued to live together in C-Ground Housing at Silung-si (hereinafter “instant Housing”) and maintained de facto marriage.

B. The Defendant, on December 20, 2004, drafted a cash storage certificate of March 13, 2005 (hereinafter “the cash storage certificate of this case”), stating that the Defendant shall delegate the instant housing remodeling construction work to the Defendant and pay the Plaintiff KRW 120,00,000 as the construction cost (hereinafter “instant construction work”) and that the Plaintiff shall use and benefit from the instant housing without compensation until the Plaintiff pays KRW 120,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's seal imprint is affixed to the letter of performance and cash custody of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that he completed the construction of this case at the request of the defendant around December 2004, and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff 120,000,000 won as the construction price. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 120,000,000 won and delay damages.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the letter of performance and the cash custody certificate of this case were forged, and the plaintiff and the defendant did not contract the construction of this case to the plaintiff since the end of 2003, and that even if the plaintiff partly borne the expenses of the construction of this case, it is merely the method of paying the amount that the defendant paid to the plaintiff, and even if the plaintiff's claim for construction payment against the defendant is recognized, the above claim has expired by prescription.

(b) the seal of the holder of a title deed affixed to the judgment document;

arrow